Talk:Global AbuseFilter/Archives/2022

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2022, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

False positives on Breton Wikipedia

Latest comment: 2 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

Hello, we are experiencing many false positives for filters 201 and 214, and a few of them for filters 238 and 265, on the Breton Wikipedia. What can be done about it? Does the whole wiki have to opt out of global filters, or can these filters be disabled for us? Huñvreüs (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Huñvreüs, can you link a couple of the false positives so I can investigate? GeneralNotability (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

201:

214:

238:

265:

Thanks for investigating. Huñvreüs (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Huñvreüs only 214 should possibly impacting editors - are you seeing anything besides a log hit for 201,238, or 265? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Filter 214 updated for hit 466. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer4: Thanks. If you could also get it not to flag hit 477, that would be great, since the user was really trying to add useful content. Huñvreüs (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh they do, and we certainly want to avoid FP's as much as possible. Some of these have large collections of strings that are generally disruptive. I asked because if there is not an impact, opting out locally would probably be worse for a small project that doesn't have many people to manage this locally. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: No actions were taken for filters 201, 238 and 267, but I still thought useful to report the false positives. I don’t know how you work, but I can only suppose that the middle/long term goal is to make these filters do something. Huñvreüs (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Another false positive for filter 214: https://br.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dibar:AbuseLog/338 Huñvreüs (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

This one is already covered by my fix. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer4: Is the filter fixed for hit 477? Huñvreüs (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Huñvreüs (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Here are two new false positives for filter 201:

No actions taken but I am still reporting them in case you can improve the filter. Huñvreüs (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The "antivandalism" filter is meant to be pretty coarse from my experience, and I don't think there are any plans to add any actions to it (and if there were, not before careful review of recent hits which would reveal such false positives very easily), so reporting them here doesn't seem worthwhile to me. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. Huñvreüs (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Global filter 165 triggered on reverts

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

25 may: is:Special:Diff/1755901
6 may: is:Special:Diff/1753779
6 may: is:Special:Diff/1753781
9 february: is:Special:Diff/1745059
8 february: is:Special:Diff/1745030
27 nov 2021: is:Special:Diff/1736658
20 october 2021: is:Special:Diff/1733241

All of the reverts where made with anti-vandalism tools, mostly SWViewer. Although the edits are old the filter was last edited in august 2021. Snævar (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

So for Special:AbuseFilter/165 - the "action" on this is "log", and the examples seem quite rare: so the impact is quite low. Are you seeing a lot of these, I suppose we could exempt edits from SWViewer if that is the only FP type that is happening often. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
All those examples are an exhaustive list on this particular wiki, I made sure of that. On the wiki in question this filter has the most hits out of all of them, including local filters. To me, without seeing the filter itself, it seems to me that it is probably using the whole diff instead of added_lines/added_links. It is not clear to me what you mean by action log, it could either be the action of the filter or the user that got hit by the filter. Snævar (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
The filter appears to be matching all page creations with a "ð" (also two other quite common Latin letters with diacritic). This seems pretty ridiculous; Special:AbuseFilter/273 has a much better mechanism for detecting relevant spam. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
"ð" is part of the local (icelandic) alphabet, so it is going to be encountered quite a lot. Snævar (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Martin Urbanec: Any comment on this, since you last edited the filter in question? Snævar (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

special:abusefilter/165 triggered on talk page requests

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Triggered on 148.122.135.23 contributions. All of these (as of the time of this edit) are invalid. Those are all notifications about spelling mistakes in the title of the page. Snævar (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@DannyS712 and Martin Urbanec: last real editors of a less simple filter. Care to play? — billinghurst sDrewth 01:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

For those without the ability to view private filters on that wiki (non-GS), the meta hits are at [1]. Should be fixed by Special:AbuseFilter/history/165/diff/prev/4490. DannyS712 (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Snævar: ^^^ — billinghurst sDrewth 13:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

False positive of Special:AbuseFilter/131

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit was reverting an unconstructive edit but disallowed by the filter. Lt2818 (talk) 06:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have tweaked the filter so that non-new Wikimedians are not caught. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)